Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

Somehow I don't see answering the concerns with ~ It's a complacency issue and... well you know, boyz will be boyz. is gonna cut it with the companies losing $ fixing the aircraft.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

I reality does anyone ever have 100% solid evidence anything 'will' absolutely work in the future?

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

If aircraft insurers were threatening to not cover aircraft used for CRW jumpers due to CRW jumpers opening six inches out the door and tearing aircraft tails off, then yes, it might make sense for USPA to look at better training for CRW jumpers.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

Okay then, how about looking at it from an outsiders (Underwriter) viewpoint.

There is a list of incidents causing payouts directly attributed to wing-suits.

If 'poor training' isn't the cause, and everyone doing it fully understands how to do it right and the consequences of not.

AND there are tail-strike going on...then something 'else' is inherently hazardous with wing-suits and as popularity grows so will the number of incidents.

I have to think that from and underwriters chair, no decisive action taken to at minimum regulate who does it, when, and with experienced oversight...is like saying nothing 'can' be done.

Given the climate of the cautionary letter and some DZO's response I would think people that love wing-suiting would be anxious to get something acceptable in place quickly.

And what if it turns out that your solution wasn't a solution at all, because you had mis-diagnosed the problem? You have NO EVIDENCE that you have correctly diagnosed the problem.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

Again and as you well know, other areas of aviation address similar situations of operating complex hardware with standardized training and accepted performance of skills.

So though it's true I can not say definitively that it will work in this exact instance, there are solid examples of positive results in similar situations.

That's kinda how we operate in general terms, I can't say with a 100% degree of certainty my reserve will open next time I need it...it's new and it's 'never worked before' so I can't PROVE it will.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

Yup...a soon as drop-zones start getting letters from insurance companies regarding payouts on damage caused by those disciplines, we'll prolly have to look at them too!

If aircraft insurers were threatening to not cover aircraft used for CRW jumpers due to CRW jumpers opening six inches out the door and tearing aircraft tails off, then yes, it might make sense for USPA to look at better training for CRW jumpers.

I would agree, IF there were any evidence that the incidents in question had been due to poor training.

HOWEVER, there isn't. Just as there isn't any that wingsuit tail strikes have been due to poor training.

But you were talking about the lack of specific exit techniques from USPA. And not even you - an instructor who went out of his way to learn about wingsuiting, and actually sought out information on it - knew about it. Given that your average 500 jumps wonder has no chance.

When I did my WS jumps... It was not in the SIM. Since I have done none since, there is little reason for me to bother to check.

Also, even without the training I knew to keep my wings closed till well after I left the plane.

Quote:

Keep in mind this program is not trying to save someone like you; you're an instructor, have a ton of connections and know how to seek out the instruction you need. The people we do have to reach are the yahoos who have ten pounds of enthusiasm, a pound of experience and an ounce of contacts in the wingsuiting world.

All you need to have happen is DSE creating a 'best practice' and giving it to the DZO's and aircraft owners. They can then make that type of exit MANDATORY. "Comply or no fly".

It does not take creating another bureaucracy.

Quote:

>So you are going to create an "aircraft separation instructor" program?

Nope, we don't need a separate program for that, because we already have one.

OK, since people get killed on big ways, you now going to support a bigway instructor system?

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

Enter…. Standardized Instruction!!! Maybe not a cure all, but it’s a start. Remember, I’m an Educator and speak to this from an edumacation perspective. This is where “Best Practices” take over.

Education does not equal a program from the USPA. That the failure of this logic. No one is saying education is not the answer, I am saying that the USPA is not the best choice.

Look at base jumping. Your same argument applies, but it was fixed without dragging in the USPA. There are BASE schools and they have nothing to do with the USPA.

The SAME thing can be done with WS. They can create their own organization and teach till they are blue in the face.

I am also an educator. I have been a skydiving instructor since the early 90's. I have been a corporate instructor, and now I hold seminars for corporations. No one is saying education is not the answer.... Just that it is not the scope of the USPA to teach advanced instruction.

When 4way was the rage, the USPA didn't create a "4way Instructor". People like Pirus helped created Skydive U.

When sky surf was growing (and killing people and freaking them out) the USPA didn't create a skysurf instructor rating. There however were several schools (The Arizona Boarding School is the only one I can remember, but there was on in Titusville, FL as well).

When freeflying caught on with all its additional and new dangers, the USPA didn't create a "Freeflying Instructor" rating system. Atmospheric Dolphin created the AD1 through whatever system.

When gravity balls were the rage and people were dropping them left and right, the USPA didn't create a "Gravity Ball Instructor"... Instead private organizations (AD) created a rating system and most DZ's required that approval to jump with a gravity ball.

When swooping was the rage, the USPA didn't create "Swooping Instructors". People like Ian Bobo created Flight 1.

So NO ONE is saying education is not the answer. What several people are saying is that involving the USPA is not the answer.

NOTHING is stopping DSE from creating the "First school of wing flight" and running it like so many others have done.

No one is saying that education is not the answer... only that the USPA is not the organization to create, certify, or run the program.

Using your logic, we should have a USPA certified bureaucracy for CRW, sit flying, vRW, sport accuracy, swooping, raft jumps, etc. The amount of evidence you have for incidents in these disciplines being due to poor training is EXACTLY the same as you have with wingsuiting.

Yup...a soon as drop-zones start getting letters from insurance companies regarding payouts on damage caused by those disciplines, we'll prolly have to look at them too!

You can bet your boots, and your PRO Rating, that if the proponents of this initiative had ANY evidence that the tailstrikes they quote had been due to poorly instructed newbies, it would be all over DZ.COM, Facebook, Twitter, and every other forum frquented by skydivers. Every incident except Harrington's had an individual involved who could have been asked how he was instructed to exit. Yet apparently no one thought to do this (or they chose not to). Harrington was an extremely experienced WS flier with over 1,000 WS jumps. Highly doubtful that poor training could be blamed for that incident.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

I usually agree with you, Twardo, but here I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Here's why:

I'm not sure that you have evidence that what we're doing now is not correcting the problem. (Hear me out):

In 2011, we reportedly had one wingsuit-related aircraft strike every 28 days. I'm not going to harp on the fact that those stats were apparently worldwide statistics, and included things like people catching their foot on the door while exiting - for our purposes here, let's just assume they're all legitimate.

For a few months now, the thing I've been asking for has been an accounting of wingsuit-related tailstrikes in the U.S. in the year 2012. Since Spot seems to be the only person who receives reports of such things (or Rich Winstock as well, perhaps?), I wish they would furnish those in the interest of transparency.

I suspect we'll find a drastically-reduced amount of strikes. Worldwide. Why? Because of awareness. Awareness is the only thing that can trump complacency. We've been discussing this thing so much that people have become aware of it. Let's keep that awareness going.

What I want is the same thing that the insurance company wants (as evidenced by Jeff's letter to Robin): for tailstrikes to stop. I think that's what we all want. And if our increased awareness has led to a great reduction (or elimination) in the amount of tailstrikes, I'd much rather keep growing that awareness, because it's working.

In the wingsuit forum (IIRC), Lurch had a great recommendation for an information campaign - I think we should make that a much higher priority than a new bureaucratic program to require every skydiver who wants to fly a wingsuit have someone read them the SIM.

----

I just want to see these things stop. If I had a guarantee that a USPA-sanctioned wingsuit instructor program would stop them, I'd be much more likely to be for it.

As it is, I've taken a step back to try and take a balanced, objective look at the pros and cons of a mandatory WSI program. And from where I sit, the cons far outweigh the pros. For me, the legal implications and the added bureaucracy far outweigh any potential gains we might see - particularly if awareness is truly the key to stopping tailstrikes (which, it would seem based on the lack of 2012 reports, is the case).

If we're doing a lot better on tailstrikes this year, it seems that a mandatory bureaucratic program isn't the solution we're looking for.

So I'll ask again - can anyone give me a report of how many wingsuit-related tailstrikes we've had in the U.S. since the start of 2012?

Make each wingsuiter watch a "Bill Booth" video about the dangers of tail strikes, take a short written test, and sign a waiver. Then they get a little sticker for their helmet that shows they passed. Add a $5 surcharge for processing.

The waiver could include things "Tail strikes to be paid for by jumper" Jumper's gear and car will be held until paid in full for damages.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

.

You said it is time to do something. 'Find middle ground'.

I just used your post to once again state that creating another instructional system is overkill.

But, doing something, when not well thought out risks adding BS with little to no benefit.

What I am saying is: now is the time for all sides of this issue to stop bickering and arguing over semantics and instead find some common middle ground and address the concerns of the insurance companies who underwrite the million dollar airplanes from which we jump

Creating a bureaucracy of an entire new training system to be run by the USPA is like using a shotgun to try and take out a housefly.

It might work, but it is going to be messy and overkill.

Yeah... uhm... ok ... I'm not sure what you thought I said in my post that led to your response.

Creating a bureaucracy ?? entire new training system?? USPA???..... I'm pretty sure I didn't say or even elude to any of that.

.

You said it is time to do something. 'Find middle ground'.

I just used your post to once again state that creating another instructional system is overkill.

But, doing something, when not well thought out risks adding BS with little to no benefit.

Your posts are just making the point in my original post.

Having been in the insurance business for the past 30 years - if I were giving advice to the underwriters of these incidents I would tell them:

" It appears that the skydiving community can not find a consensus to address our concerns on these hull damage claims due to "wingsuit jumpers".

Our only course of action is to pull the overage of these types of jumps until the skydiving industry can come up with a solution that meets our terms of risk management.

Well, no-one has yet been able to answer the question I've asked repeatedly, which is:

HOW MANY WINGSUIT ACCIDENTS CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO POOR INITIAL TRAINING?

John, I know you love wingsuiting and I know you're good at it and don't want to see it be taken out of our sport. You clearly have a passion for this and you, like most, are strong in your convictions and I commend you for that.

I don't have enough knowledge of this discipline to take a side.

However, in my view - the problem which needs to be addressed immediately is from the perspective of the "Risk Underwriter" - the insurance company.

.

We have NO EVIDENCE that poor training caused the problem, and therefore no reason to believe that a USPA WS-I rating will solve the problem. None. It is an assumption with no foundation in fact.

If complacency is the problem leading to tail strikes (and many seem to think that it is) then a reminder notice by the door is more likely to be successful than a whole new USPA training bureacracy.

+1

This thread is getting far off topic and devolving once again into the very thing Jeff said we needed to stop doing; arguing about whether USPA should administer and standardize advanced wingsuit training.

The "reminder chain" I proposed, and which Jeff disseminated throughout his client pool, is an example of what the insurers seek: immediate action to stop tail strikes.

According to Jeff, the primary choice among DZOs to date has been to institute the "3-second rule" and/or to place Skydive Elsinore's "Fight the Bite" stickers near their Pavlov lights.

To date, we have had no additional tail strikes since the last one, which, IIRC was 2-3 months ago.

So we seem to have a good start., given that we were averaging about one a month before Jeff's initial insurance carrier warning email.

But we need to stay focused on what we can do now to reduce tail strikes.

The DZOs have already made their choices, either by suspending wingsuiting for now; or instituting the 3-second rule and various reminders.

Next up should be dealing with something that the primary proposal pusher has asserted repeatedly: that various grand exalted wingsuit senseis are teaching different exit methods, some of which "encourage" tail strikes while others discourage it.

It seems to me that, all the hoohah aside, the next step should to be convene an online or in-person meeting of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis and have them hash out a standardized exit. Period. Full stop.

That is the standardization the insurers most want to see; a standardized exit that eliminates tail strikes -- and really, if all of the grand exalted wingsuit senseis agree simply on keeping their wings closed for 3 seconds, there isn't too much more to standardize except for the definition of "wings closed" -- which I propose should be based on the original Birdman technique that, IIRC, defines "wings closed" as: "elbows against your ribs, legs together until you can see that you are clear of the plane."

Standardize the definition of "wings closed" and you standardize the exit, which will radically reduce the chance of tail strikes -- and then we can all argue about the rest later.

That is what Jeff's email is all about, and for everyone's convenience, here again is the last paragraph thereof:

Quote:

What is the wing suit community doing about regulating the problem, other that arguing about whether or not it should be regulated by the USPA? I think discussion is great but in my opinion, (now it is my opinion again) the wing suit community needs to redirect its discussion back onto the path of how to stop all tail strikes today! Let's make the last tail strike the last tail strike.

There is no argument to wingsuit instruction. Apparently we will all seem to disagree on that till some of us are dead. That's all. I have no other interest invested. No brand. No rating. Fuck would I want in the middle of the dress drama??? I just don't understand WHY some are SO angrily against an attempt to improve wingsuiting. (more so given the aircraft flaying air mattresses these days)

Arguing guys with thousands of jumps are going in doesn't support the other side to me...at all. If the smart experienced guys are having issues, then we are doing something wrong! We've had an unofficial rating and training program for YEARS now. Look how well that's working. We need a common curriculum IMO. I will vote accordingly.

But I do have evidence that what we're doing now isn't correcting the problem.

Conversely do you have solid evidence that overall standardized training by qualified individuals won't fix the problem?

I usually agree with you, Twardo, but here I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Here's why:

I'm not sure that you have evidence that what we're doing now is not correcting the problem. (Hear me out):

In 2011, we reportedly had one wingsuit-related aircraft strike every 28 days. I'm not going to harp on the fact that those stats were apparently worldwide statistics, and included things like people catching their foot on the door while exiting. - for our purposes here, let's just assume they're all legitimate.

Every listed tailstrike is a body part or rig making contact with a horizontal stabilizer. In nearly all cases on the public chart, the cost of repair, type of injury (if any) is noted.

"Catching a foot on a door while exiting" isn't uniquely listed in the chart, unless the foot catch resulted in a body/rig to making contact with the horizontal (or vertical) stabilizer.

Yes, they're world-wide. The broad majority of them are in the US. There are a few not on the list because they've either surfaced after the last list was generated, or they are not confirmed. "more" doesn't seem better in this conversation.